A reader forwarded this article, published in Australia, to me. I thought it had some good information. I’m particularly intrigued by the short discussion about how Quiksilver and Billabong will or will not be combined or work together. Here’s the link.
We’ve all heard the phrase, “Taking away the punch bowl.” As far as I know, it originated in the 1955 speech of Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin, which is presented below in its entirety. I suspect that most people, if they take the time to read it and have just a little knowledge of current Fed policy, will wish Mr. Martin had been Fed Chairman from maybe 1995 to 2014 instead of from 1951 to 1970. Bluntly, I suspect that if he had been Chairman in the current era, the bubbles that lead to the Great Recession would never have happened and zero interest rates, with all the misallocation of capital they cause, wouldn’t have been allowed to persist.
I suppose on the one hand this has nothing to do with the action sports or active outdoor market. On the other hand, it has everything to do with the difficult times we find ourselves trying to run businesses in.
ADDRESS OF WILLIAM MCCHESNEY MARTIN JR.
Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Waldorf Astoria Hotel New York City October 19, 1955
There’s an apocryphal story about a professor of economics that sums up in a way the theme of what I would like to talk about this evening. In final examinations the professor always posed the same questions. When he was asked how his students could possibly fail the test, he replied simply, “Well, it’s true that the questions don’t change, but the answers do.” Here the questions are in large measure hardy perennials: How do we attain and retain prosperity? How do we achieve normal healthy growth? How do we preserve the purchasing power of our money? The answers to these interrelated questions in the 1950’s far differ in important respects from those of earlier decades.
My purpose tonight is to explore with you some of the main currents and undercurrents of thought which have colored and shaped these differing answers.
It is, of course, unorthodox, if not downright poor form, to reach your conclusion in the course of your introductory remarks. But, as a matter of emphasis, I would like to state it now.
In the absence of war, or serious conflict among our people over political or social aims, the road to a substantially higher standard of living lies ahead of us as clear and as smooth as our modern turnpikes. We have passed through the turnstiles and are, in my judgment, out on the open road. This position has been achieved after a good many ups and downs false starts, adaptations to war and preparations for war, false turns, and poor directions. Furthermore, the machine we are driving is adequate and capable of traversing the grades, curves, crossroads, and danger points, provided only that the drivers observe the speed laws, are alert and responsible, and sufficiently trained and experienced in the art of driving to understand the nature of the principles of propulsion, and the goals of the journey they are making. Our ability to travel this road safely depends upon a community of drivers who understand and utilize the time-tested principles which are derived from our inheritance.
It seems rather striking that one of the ideas now firmly imbedded in our articles of material faith, the concept of governmental responsibility for moderating economic gyrations, is almost entirely a product of our own Twentieth Century.
This concept, which is steadily being brought into sharper focus, has evolved from general reaction to a succession of material crises heavy in human hardship. It grew from mass desperation and demand for protection from economic disasters beyond individual control.
The Federal Reserve System, which I have the honor to represent, was our earliest institutional response to such a demand. It emerged out of the urgent need to prevent recurrences of such disasters as the money panic of 1907, and out of the thought that the Government had a definite responsibility to prevent financial crises and should utilize all its powers to do so.
Accordingly, 42 years ago Congress entrusted to the Federal Reserve System responsibility for managing the money supply. This was an historic and revolutionary step. In framing the Federal Reserve Act, great care was taken to safeguard this money management from improper interference by either private or political interests. That is why we talk about the overriding importance of maintaining our independence. Hence we have our system of regional banks, headed up by a coordinating Board in Washington, intended to have only that degree of centralized authority required to discharge effectively a national policy. This constitutes, as those of you in this audience recognize, a blending of public interest and private enterprise uniquely American in character. Too few of us adequately recognize or adequately salute the genius of the framers of our central banking system in providing this organizational bulwark of private banking and business.
Since the Federal Reserve System came into being, the problems of inelasticity of currency and immobility of bank reserves—which so often showed up as shortages of currency or credit in times of critical need—have been eliminated, and money panics have largely disappeared. In this specialized respect there can be no doubt that the System has made notable progress, but in the more fundamental role of stabilizing the economy the record is not so clear. All of us in the System are bending our best efforts to capitalize on the experience of the past, and our current knowledge of money, so as to make as large a contribution as possible in this direction. But a note should be made here that, while money policy can do a great deal, it is by no means all powerful. In other words, we should not place too heavy a burden on monetary policy. It must be accompanied by appropriate fiscal and budgetary measures if we are to achieve our aim of stable progress. If we ask too much of monetary policy we will not only fail but we will also discredit this useful, and indeed indispensable, tool for shaping our economic development.
The answers we sought to the massive problems of the 1930’s increasingly emphasized an enlarging role for Government in our economic life. That role was greatly extended again in the 1940’s when the emergency of World War II led to direct controls over wages, prices, and the distribution of goods ranging from sugar to steel.
That experience led to growing concern over the effect of a straitjacket of controls on the economy’s productive capacity, and the price that would be exacted in terms of individual liberty if the harness of wartime economic controls were carried over into the post-war years.
Such a straitjacketing of the economy is wholly inconsistent with our political institutions and our private enterprise system. The history of despotic rule, of authoritarian rule, not merely in this century but throughout the ages, is acutely repugnant to us. It has taken a frightful toll in human misery and degradation.
The transformation of this country from a wilderness to a highly developed civilization demonstrates the results that can be obtained through a system which is directed toward releasing, not shackling, energies and abilities. The fruits of these energies and labors are shared in growing abundance, not by primitive barter, but by the processes of the market place.
The advantages of a system where supply capacities and demand wants and needs are matched in open markets cannot be measured in economic terms alone. In addition to the advantages of efficiency in the use of economic resources, there are vast gains in terms of personal liberty. Powers of decision are dispersed among the millions affected instead of being centralized in a few persons in authority.
The basic concept of the market system has remained with us since the founding of the nation. It has remained the cornerstone of our society to this day, although we have done some extensive remodeling of the structure as a whole from time to time.
We have in the past done some remodeling for the admirable purpose of correcting structural defects and distortions. Competitive, freely functioning markets are one thing, and rigged markets are another. Rules and regulations to prevent rigging are necessary and essential to a sound structure.
Other remodeling has come about because the American people have refused to accept economic goals as their sole objective. That was true in older generations, as well as our own. Our family inheritances have, I am glad to say, usually included the beliefs that man cannot live by bread alone, and that in a properly equipped home library the Bible should occupy a more important place than a manual of arms or a mail order catalogue. Let it be said, to our credit, that American economic action has often been determined by balancing material advance against other human objectives.
For these reasons, and perhaps others, our market system has been modified continuously throughout this country’s history. Ideas of market places functioning with no rules or regulations except the “law of the jungle” have, quite justly, gone the way of the great buffalo herds. When we speak today of “free markets” we of course mean markets that are only relatively free, as the freedom of speech we enjoy is itself only a relative freedom. The essential characteristics of free markets have nevertheless been retained.
It is true that in a great emergency we have been willing to make a departure from our market structure, but our mood has been that of the man who has to leave home for the confines of a bomb shelter. When a war comes on, we are willing to put up with all sorts of economic controls and dictation of even small details of our economic life. The dignity of the individual gets submerged in the necessity to win the war. The law of supply and demand is suspended temporarily, but it cannot be permanently repealed. It is always with us just as is the law of gravity.
When peace is restored we do not continue to ignore it. We cannot substitute the judgment of a few in authority for the free and independent judgments of the community as they are expressed in the market place. We cannot do so, that is, and retain our concept of freedom in a competitive, private enterprise economy.
I am not unaware that freedom entails certain hardships on the nervous constitution. It gives us opportunity to choose, but it also requires the making of choices. The pleasure of having a choice to make is counterbalanced by not only the necessity for making a choice, but also the responsibility for accepting the consequences of that choice, whether good or bad. Naturally we like the consequences only when our choice proves right. That’s one reason it is easier to make a mistake than to admit one.
It requires no strain on my imagination to suppose that there might be some, even in this audience, who occasionally feel a nostalgia for the pegged money market that came into existence during the war and continued until the Treasury-Federal Reserve accord of March 1951 turned us back in the direction of a freer market.
Free markets, like free economies, have a way of going down as well as up, and thus reminding us that our system is one of profit and loss, entailing penalties as well as rewards. During the last four and a half years the Federal Reserve has pursued a monetary policy characterized by flexibility, or prompt adaptation to the sharply changing needs of a dynamic economy. It has been necessary in this period to combat both the forces of inflation and of deflation.
There are some who contend that a little inflation—a creeping inflation—is necessary and desirable in promoting our goal of maximum employment. My able associate, Allan Sproul, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, put his finger on the fallacy in this contention in testifying before a Congressional committee earlier this year when he said:
“Those who would seek to promote ‘full employment’ by creeping inflation, induced by credit policy, are trying to correct structural maladjustments, which are inevitable in a highly dynamic economy, by debasing the savings of the people. If their advocacy of this course is motivated by concern for ‘the little fellow’, they should explain to the holders of savings bonds, savings deposits, building and loan shares, life insurance policies and pension rights, just how and why a rise in prices of, say, 3 per cent a year is a small price to pay for achieving ‘full employment’. They should also explain to all of us—little, big, and just plain ordinary Americans—what becomes of our whole system of long term contracts, on which so much of our economic activity depends, if it is to be accepted in advance that repayment of long term debt will surely be in badly depreciated coin.”
If inflation would in fact make jobs, no reasonable man would be against it. But as I have frequently emphasized, inflation seems to be putting money into our pockets when in fact it is robbing the saver, the pensioner, the retired workman, the aged–those least able to defend themselves. And when the inevitable aftermath of deflation sets in, businessman, banker, worker, all suffer. That doesn’t mean jobs. It means just the opposite.
There have been some rather wide swings in attitudes toward monetary policy during recent years. In the depression, a great number came to the conclusion that monetary policy was ineffective as an instrument for promoting recovery from economic decline. Following World War II, some were troubled by the move from direct controls to restoration of the general control involved in monetary policy because they feared it could not restrain the inflation then prevalent—not, that is, without being so drastically exerted as to plunge us into a devastating depression.
Nowadays, there is perhaps a tendency to exaggerate the effectiveness of monetary policy in both directions. Recently, opinion has been voiced that the country’ s main danger comes from a roseate belief that monetary policy, backed by flexible tax and debt management policies and aided by a host of built-in stabilizers, has completely conquered the problem of major economic fluctuations and relegated them to ancient history. This, of course, is not so because we are dealing with human beings and human nature.
While the pendulum swings between too little or too much reliance upon credit and monetary policy, there is an emerging realization (more and more widely held and expressed by business, labor and farm organizations) that ruinous depressions are not inevitable, that something can be done about moderating excessive swings of the business cycle. The idea that the business cycle can be altogether abolished seems to me as fanciful as the notion that the law of supply and demand can be repealed. It is hardly necessary to go that far in order to approach the problems of healthy economic growth sensibly and constructively. Laissez faire concepts, the idea that deep depressions are divinely guided retribution for man’s economic follies, the idea that money should be the master instead of the servant, have been discarded because they are no longer valid, if they ever were.
Nor does the discarding of old ideas and the substitution of new ones mean that we are throwing basic laws or principles overboard. It is the return to first principles in many parts of the free world that is the most significant aspect of world-wide recovery and progress outside of the Iron Curtain. And that, in turn, vastly brightens the hope of lasting peace.
By first principles I mean time-tested basic concepts of the market place and the development of competitive private enterprise, with only that degree of Government interference or regulation necessary to prevent abuses and excesses. We see a return to these concepts here and abroad because other concepts have failed, and where there has not yet been a revival of these concepts economic troubles are acute.
As I suggested at the outset, the basic problems, the questions, remain pretty much the same always. The answers are different—and no one would be so rash as to say that we have ultimate solutions for all of our problems. We can say confidently, I think, that we have discarded some wrong answers—that we have returned to some of those fundamental principles under which our society, our institutions, have flourished with incomparable benefits, benefits not merely material.
There will always be some, of course, who think we must go through the wringer periodically to purge the economy. There will always be cynics and defeatists, no doubt, who say that because there have always been disastrous depressions and more disastrous wars, we must accept these visitations as inevitable. If there are enough hopeless Jeremiahs, enough defeatists and cynics, those calamities are indeed inevitable. If we do nothing about it, if we do nothing to prevent inflation and thus avoid the inevitable aftermath of deflation, then of course we are defeated. Today’s generations will accept no such fatalistic philosophy.
If we fail to apply the brakes sufficiently and in time, of course, we shall go over the cliff. If businessmen, bankers, your contemporaries in the business and financial world, stay on the sidelines, concerned only with making profits, letting the Government bear all of the responsibility and the burden of guidance of the economy, we shall surely fail. I am as weary as you are of pious platitudes and after dinner preachments about leadership and financial statesmanship. But the fact is that the Government isn’t something apart and remote from you. It is you—all of us. If those responsible for major decisions in business, finance, labor, agriculture, are irresponsible, Government can’t compel you, short of moving in the direction of dictatorship, to be reasonable, or moderate, or prudent. In the field of monetary and credit policy, precautionary action to prevent inflationary excesses is bound to have some onerous effects—if it did not it would be ineffective and futile. Those who have the task of making such policy don’t expect you to applaud. The Federal Reserve, as one writer put it, after the recent increase in the discount rate, is in the position of the chaperone who has ordered the punch bowl removed just when the party was really warming up.
But unless the business community, leaders in all walks, exhibit moderation, prudence, and understanding, then we will fail and deserve to fail, I cannot believe we will be so blind. I have a deep and abiding faith in that undefinable yet meaningful phrase we frequently use—“the American Way of Life.”
Here’s an article that contains additional information on why she resigned. I might not normally choose to post this, but it may provide some additional insight into Quiksilver’s turnaround efforts. You can decide for yourself what significance it has or does not have.
A gentleman named Jerry Useem wrote an article with this title for the June 2015 issue of The Atlantic. You can read the whole article here. It reviews research on how behavior in the work place impacts your success or failure.
I would urge you to read the whole thing, but I particularly want to highlight his short discussion of high end brands getting sold at retail. Here’s his whole quote on the subject. I’ve highlighted the paragraph I found most interesting.
Darren Dahl had never set foot in the Hermès store in downtown Vancouver when, one afternoon, he sauntered in. Clad in jeans and a T-shirt—looking “kind of ratty,” he confesses—he had not planned on a shopping excursion. The saleswoman behind the counter looked up from some paperwork and, as Dahl remembers it, “literally shook her head in disapproval.”
What a jerk, Dahl thought. He reacted by leaving the store—after buying $220 worth of grapefruit cologne. Two bottles of it.
“I couldn’t believe I had spent so much money,” says Dahl, who should have known better: he is a professor of marketing and behavioral science at the University of British Columbia. Before long, he had devised a study that asked, was it just him? Or could rudeness cause other people to open their wallets too?
The answer was a qualified yes. When it came to “aspirational” brands like Gucci, Burberry, and Louis Vuitton, participants were willing to pay more in a scenario in which they felt rejected. But the qualifications were major. A customer had to feel a longing for the brand, and if the salesperson did not look the image the brand was trying to project, condescension backfired. For mass-market retailers like the Gap, American Eagle, and H&M, rejection backfired regardless.
Finally, the effect seemed to be limited to a single encounter. When Dahl and his colleagues followed up with the buyers, he found evidence of a boomerang effect much like the one he had felt a few minutes after his purchase: the buyers were less favorably disposed toward the brand than they had been at the outset. (And come to think of it, Dahl says, he hasn’t been back to Hermès since.)
An awful lot of our customers are aspirational, or at least we characterize them that way. Most brands depend on them. In the history of snow, skate and surf, there have been times when we exuded an exclusive image and suggested to potential customers that if they were lucky, we might let them join the tribe. Apparently, playing on that kind of insecurity, if it’s right to characterize it that way, doesn’t work for long. And, if you relieve this research, it doesn’t work at all once a product is in broader distribution.
Put another way, can you have an aspirational brand in broad distribution? Do successful aspirational brands have to be higher priced? Is how closely a brand is associated with a particular activity correlated with where and to whom it can be sold?
I haven’t seen the whole research study, but there’s clearly some food for thought here.
We all give lip service to the speed of technological change. I imagine most of you have heard that the first driverless 18 wheel trucks are on the highways in Nevada. For the time being, they’ve got a driver accompanying them, but I don’t expect that to last. Here’s a link to the story in case you haven’t seen it.
“Wow, isn’t that interesting!” we say and go right back to what we were doing. But sometimes this change gets a little closer to home.
Exhibit A is the Lily Camera. The camera is built into a drone that follows a signal from a small device you wear on your wrist. You can apparently give it positioning instructions. I’m not quite clear on how it avoids obstructions as it follows you. The flight time is limited to 20 minutes right now. Battery technology seems to be holding lots of innovations back.
Here’s a link to the camera in action. It is very cool. I trust that GoPro is not only aware of this, but is all over the technology. It won’t ship until next February with a price of $499.00. I imagine that price will drop over time. The web site is www.lily.camera but there’s not much to see there yet.
I don’t see the evolution of this technology ending well for the people who film our athletes in action any more than it will end well for long haul truck drivers.
Once again, my research department has come through. They’ve presented me with a paper from PwC and Kantar Retail that talks in some detail about where they see retail going between 2013 and 2020. It’s a little dated, but still very relevant. If you’re already seen it, never mind.
I suppose one of the reasons I like it so much is that they say a lot of the things I’ve been saying, but they’ve taken 44 pages to say it with more analysis and explanation than I ever have time for.
Here’s a quote from their summary, but you really need to read the whole thing to understand what they mean.
“Success will likely be shaped by several factors, weaved together in a flexible, scalable, and agile model. The winning retailers will have a superior understanding of their consumer, considering income and demographic fragmentation, as well as behaviors, and will have the inert ability to analyze shopper data and extract valuable information. They will leverage technology shifts to their advantage and turn business intelligence and data into actionable insight to grow and benefit the business. They will integrate these insights into the demand chain and into enhanced customer service models. They will have an enhanced understanding of market fragments and patterns of growth and will be able to operate and manage “glocally”- on a global scale with attention to local needs. Leading retailers will address the challenges to their economic models and adapt their frame of mind on store formats, employment models and return on investment. The successful 2020 retailer will also build a true omnichannel operation that allows customers to interface through any channel of their preference on a 24/7 basis, anywhere at any time.”
We are all aware that Nike releases smaller quantities of limited production sneakers that are sold at pretty typical retail prices then resold for big markups. The interesting question is why Nike doesn’t price them higher and take at least some of that retail profit for themselves.
The guy profiled in this article called You See Sneakers, These Guys See Hundreds of Millions in Resale Profit , along with the woman who wrote it, offer a pretty good description of this market and some insight into why Nike manages it the way they do.
When you read the article, you’ll see that even for Nike, there’s a bunch of money being potentially left on the table. They are apparently thinking about how to capture some of it.
With revenues approaching $30 billion, Nike is hardly under distributed. Yet somehow, the brand still has some credibility even in our little corner of the retail world- though perhaps not as much as it did.
I’ve been writing that distribution has become hard- that is, each decision to widen distribution has to be taken individually after some consideration. It’s no longer just a matter of core or noncore like it was those many years ago. I’ve also suggested that perhaps distribution is not as important as it used to be, that merchandising matters more.
At some level, those two ideas might be construed as contradictory. But in this mad, mad, mad, market we’ve got today I’d suggest they are both correct and Nike’s management of its limited distribution sneakers may be an example of that. Perhaps Nike’s strategy of limited distribution for certain products reinforces the brand cache in broader distribution. They must believe that, or they wouldn’t be doing it.
Granted, you probably don’t have contracts with Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant or LeBron James. Still, I wonder if there aren’t some lessons here about where distribution and merchandising intersect. Go read the article.
The Board Press published a really good interview with Ultimate Distribution founder Kevin Harris. It’s his description of what he learned visiting 55 skate shops in Western Canada. I didn’t know there were 55 skate shops in Western Canada.
Kevin’s description of what he learned reminds us, or at least reminds me, is how important it is to get the hell out of your office and visit shops (and, I’d add, skate parks). This is where the real business of skateboarding happens and where you can really discern the trends.
Here’s the link to the article. I’m going to go read it again. Then I’m going to get my ass out from behind my desk and go visiting.
A reader sent me the article below that was published in the Australian on March 12th. I’d love to just provide you with a link, but The Australian would want you to sign up for an account and pay them money. I don’t blame them, but I doubt you’re going to do it and I thought you’d find this interesting.
You may recall that Rip Curl had some hard times and went through a restructuring back in 2013. It worked out, and Rip Curl director Tony Robert’s explanation of why is worth reading. He says in the article that
“…he believed the group had managed to avoid the worst of the global financial crisis and extended downturn in retail conditions because, unlike its bigger rivals, Rip Curl had stuck to its core product lines.”
“We are more of a core surf brand than either key competitors. They both grew bigger than us but in growing bigger they stretched into that non-core market more than we have and we have been very true to our roots in terms of our core products.”
Regular readers know I’m not necessarily against a brand expanding its market reach. But I believe it has to be done thoughtfully because there comes a time when your newly sought after customers may know your brand but not your story- then how are you going to compete? Anyway, the whole article is below.
Privately owned global surfwear retailer Rip Curl has been valued at $310 million by directors after the board approved a share buyback form former senior executives no longer with the company.
This compares with a $400m price tag placed on the iconic surfwear group two years ago when it was planning a sale, possibly through an initial public offer, which was later abandoned due to tough market conditions that slashed its earnings along with other brands in the retail category, such as arch rivals Quiksilver and Billabong.
Rip Curl director Tony Roberts told The Australian he believed the group had managed to avoid the worst of the global financial crisis and extended downturn in retail conditions because, unlike its bigger rivals, Rip Curl had stuck to its core product lines.
“We are more of a core surf brand than either key competitors. They both grew bigger than us but in growing bigger they stretched into that non-core market more than we have and we have been very true to our roots in terms of our core products,” Mr. Roberts said.
“For example, our wetsuits are our champion products and have been since the company was founded; probably that’s one reason why the GFC didn’t hit us as hard as it hit them.’’
Mr. Roberts confirmed the positive benefits of a restructure forged two years ago — which initially plunged the group into the red — had flowed through to 2015 with the surfwear retailer on track to reap its third consecutive full-year profit.
“Like a lot of retailers, and we are not a pure retailer, retail conditions are tough and patchy,” he said. “That’s a good way to describe them, both around Australia and globally. But we are performing well and are strong in some markets.”
Documents lodged with the corporate regulator show Rip Curl posted a 63 per cent increase in full-year net profit to $23.32m in the 12 months to June 30, 2014, as revenue increased 7.8 per cent to $429.58m.
“We had a great year last year and we are continuing to be above last year but definitely we are finding the way tough,’’ Mr. Roberts said.
He said the core business, selling surfwear products and apparel through independent surf shops, continued to be strong, while the “aspirational” side of the business — selling to customers who were not surfers but aspired to take up the sport or simply liked to be associated with the sport — had “taken a battering”.
The fresh valuation of $310m on the business came as Rip Curl, founded in the Victorian seaside town of Torquay 45 years ago by business partners Doug “Claw” Warbrick and Brian “Sing Ding” Singer, sought to buy back 1.5 per cent of its issued capital from investors.
It is believed former Rip Curl chairman and current Australia Post boss Ahmed Fahour will hold on to his small parcel of remaining shares after stepping down from the board of the surfwear equipment and apparel group last year and cashing in the majority of his stock for about $3m.
The new share buyback is part of an employee share agreement struck in 2000 that allowed senior executives to invest in the tightly held private company. The buyback will see about 76,000 Rip Curl shares bought back from former executives of the company with a price tag of $63 a share.
With just under five million shares on issue it gives Rip Curl a capitalization of $310m.
Rip Curl is still controlled by founders Mr. Warbrick and Mr. Singer, who jointly own 72 per cent of the company.
The company’s third-biggest shareholder is Francois Payot, who helped create Rip Curl’s European business.
Neither of the founders or Mr. Payot will be selling into the buyback.
Turning to the weakening Australian dollar, which puts stress on Rip Curl’s margins through the higher price of imported goods or imported product components, Mr. Roberts said the impact would need to be addressed, but in the current competitive climate it was difficult to lift prices at the retail level.
Some people up in Canada decided, for whatever reason, to start an action sports industry news magazine called The BoardPress. Their sanity in trying to do this can be questioned, but they sent me a copy of their first print magazine, which came out some months ago. Probably hoping I’d write something about them. It seems to have worked.
They featured an interview with Blue Montgomery, one of Capita’s founders that I highly recommend. I think I’ve met Blue like twice but I’ve never had a long conversation with him.
Most of these stories with brand founders in our media tend to be heroic epics with the goal of promoting the brand. I’m not claiming the people at Capita were unhappy to get the publicity, but the article was way better than the usual stuff.
Error: Contact form not found.
